Seòmar agus comataidhean

This fourth national planning framework comes at an absolutely critical time—2023 must be the year of transition and change, and of bold action to protect people, communities and our planet. Put simply, we cannot afford to waste any more time in making that transition. Of course, what we plan today could either lock us into climate pollution for decades to come or free us from fossil fuels over time.

It is therefore crucial that, for the first time, the climate and biodiversity crisis has been placed at the heart of the national planning framework. We have got a better strategy as a result, which will help us meet our targets on climate change and nature recovery in the years to come. It sets the groundwork. This is no longer a plan that prioritises only economic growth above everything else; our climate, our nature and our wellbeing are finally being considered on an equal footing in the planning system.

Critically, all planning decisions must now give significant weight to the climate and nature crises. Development proposals must minimise greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and they will have to contribute to biodiversity enhancement. This NPF is finally putting us on the right path. However, like previous frameworks, it of course sits alongside and in tandem with other strategies, including the strategic transport projects review, the biodiversity strategy and, of course, the new energy strategy that was announced for consultation only yesterday. Taken together, those strategies will chart the course for Scotland’s net zero future.

The NPF also sits alongside the fresh commitment that the Government has made to develop a net zero budget test to accelerate spending away from high-carbon and towards low-carbon capital projects. The picture here is that everything now must point in the direction of net zero, and NPF is a critical part of that landscape.

Let us consider energy policy in the NPF. We are in a climate crisis and we desperately need transformation. NPF4 lays the ground for significant expansion of renewables in Scotland. Onshore wind is the cheapest green energy source and it has a huge role to play in cutting emissions and our energy bills at the same time. Expanding our onshore wind capacity was a central commitment in the Bute house agreement. The onshore wind policy statement that was announced last year confirmed the ambition to install an additional 8GW to 12GW of onshore wind capacity, which would be a huge increase.

Scotland has an abundance of wind resources and this new policy will put them to use while ensuring that local communities and the whole country benefit from investment and green jobs. NPF4 will help us get there by transforming our planning system to facilitate the expansion of renewables while protecting our beautiful natural environment.

That is a good point. I think that the member will be aware that the local heat and energy efficiency strategies that councils have been tasked to complete will be looking at that mix of installation of embedded renewables in buildings alongside district heating. It is an important thing that councils need to plan for at that level.

Development proposals for all forms of renewables, including solar and wind, will obviously be supported in the planning system. There will also be protection against inappropriate development in national parks and national scenic areas. All developments must minimise the negative impact on natural places, local landscape and wild land through improved mitigation measures. We are seeing an NPF that has been strengthened by a biodiversity policy that ensures that it pays attention to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and learns from a lot of the good practice that is out there. Developers must also minimise negative impacts on local communities and consider issues such as public access through the implementation of walking and cycling routes.

Those changes in planning have been recognised, in the words of the renewables industry, as “a remarkable ... step forward”. It is clear that acceptable renewable developments, in the right places, must be accelerated instead of being let to languish in the planning system for years on end. There is simply no time to waste.

NPF4’s success will be measured by what it delivers, not by what it says on paper. The review of the delivery plan after six months will be a critical checkpoint. To turn the vision into reality, we must support everyone who is involved in that delivery, as much in council planning departments as in our local communities. People must feel empowered to shape the spaces around them. We must also ensure that NPF4 facilitates the action that is needed to tackle the climate and biodiversity challenges. Those things do not need to be in conflict.

A number of members have mentioned the resourcing of planning authorities. That is an incredibly important point. Westminster also needs to understand the importance of renewable energy and to ensure that, in its planning systems, it is not approving developments such as new coal mines but is looking progressively at renewable energy sources such as onshore wind, which can make a lasting contribution to the UK’s ambitions to cut climate emissions and deliver energy security.

The Greens welcome this national planning framework. We welcome the scrutiny that Parliament has given it, and we welcome the progress and the action that are to come on the back of it.

The science of climate change demands that North Sea oil and gas be phased out. That is the right thing to do for people and planet. Today, Scotland’s energy strategy abandons the dogma of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas and sets a path to a renewables future that will leave no workers behind. The UK Government must follow Scotland’s lead. What plans does the cabinet secretary have to engage UK ministers on the strategy? Does he share my concern that, unless they change direction on oil and gas, they will undermine not just our ambitions but the whole Paris agreement?

I welcome the tone of the cabinet secretary’s statement and his desire not only for a much more credible plan but to try to get a consensus in the Parliament on the really hard choices that we will have to make if we are to get any closer to meeting the targets.

The Mossmorran complex in Fife remains the third-largest climate polluter in Scotland. It is unthinkable that we could meet climate targets without slashing the plant’s emissions, but that must be achieved in a way that leaves no workers behind. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we now need a site-specific just transition plan for Mossmorran?

Just to refocus on delivery programmes, the second strategic transport projects review has just been launched in Scotland. I would be interested in your views on that. The next stage of that process is the prioritisation of a delivery plan. There are some big ideas in there, such as mass transit schemes in the cities. Are there things in STPR2 that you would question, or is it all in line with the 75 per cent target and the 2040 target? I am not sure who would like to take that.

I will move beyond that to look at wider industrial decarbonisation that may or may not feed into the Acorn project. What progress could the Scottish Government make by working with industry between now and 2030? Which options are most deliverable within that timescale?

Yesterday, I released a report that I commissioned on decarbonisation options for Mossmorran. I think that it is the first report on what a site-specific transition might look like for that plant. What are your thoughts on wider industrial decarbonisation, and what big step changes can we make?

What do you think about the French Government’s approach to banning certain domestic flights within 2.5 hours’ travel where there is a rail alternative? That came out of the French citizens assembly and the Government has now taken it on and is delivering. It is a different context, however.

It is just a brief question on the back of Liam Kerr’s point about diet change. Practically, what should Governments be delivering in that regard? Is it about changing the way in which public canteens and kitchens offer choice? Is it about food labelling? What are the tools? Is it all about market demand, given your comment that people are generally moving towards eating less meat anyway?

Good morning; it is good to see you all again. I want to ask about how Governments make decisions that are in line with net zero and targets and lead to the delivery programmes that are needed on the ground. You will be aware of the work of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Fraser of Allander Institute in producing a report on budget reforms. The report focuses on the practice of how Government makes decisions as well as on a critical net zero test. The three steps that were agreed within that are the introduction of a climate narrative into this year’s budget, a revision to the taxonomy in next year’s budget and the full implementation of a net zero test across Government the year after that.

I want to get your views on that. Is that the right approach, or is something missing? What is your analysis of how Government intends to make decisions going forward?

My question is about whether local heat and energy efficiency strategies are the right approach. I heard Keith Bell’s response about conversion, retrofitting and the numbers that we can get through the current system. Could LHEES provide a step change with, maybe, a move towards more area-based schemes that involve whole communities or streets being retrofitted and invested in? Will that approach provide the right incentive for private sector investment?

It feels as if we are struggling to find the step change here. Some work is happening with LHEES, but does it fill you with hope, or is there still some way to go?